Tuesday, June 5, 2012

The leadership of Baburam Bhatterai and Prachanda in the Nepalese
revolution has disintegrated. It has shown that rightist reactionary politics
emerged again in Nepal’s history.

The situation has become difficult because
their leadership abandoned the goal of the People’s Federal Republic.

But because
the proletarian current within the Party is strong the Party has not been
damaged and even if we face temporary problems our revolution is safe.

Now the
principal task of the revolutionary is to take the movement forward to victory.

We need to evaluate how Prachanda and Bhatterai diluted and corrupted our
politics and reach a clear solution based on the points below:

1. Programme of the Constitution Assembly

The objective of the
People’s War was a People’s Republic. After the sixth year of People’s War the
Party held its second congress and Prachanda declared that the call for a
Constitutional Assembly was a tactic towards achieving the strategic goal of a
republic. At the same meeting the debate started as to how the former could
mesh into the latter. Prachanda
said further that the establishment of a CA would validate PW. But now the CA
is not the instrument for enacting our programme but a weapon against it. It
proves that the capitulationist policies of Prachanda and Bhatterai were
cultivated under the call for a CA and that the PW was used a mechanism for
entering parliamentary institutions in an opportunist and reformist way.

There are two interesting facts regarding the Second Congress of the
Party; firstly Bhatterai agreed to the Prachanda Path and secondly the meeting
of Prachanda and Bhatterai with Delhi beforehand led to the call for a CA.

All
leaders and cadre knew that Bhatterai was opposed to centralized leadership at
the Fourth Plenum of the Party which was held in 1998, saying it would lead to
autocracy and counter-revolution.

Those close to Prachanda said this was
against the communist principle of democratic centralism and that he was a
rightist. Our Second Congress ended this debate within the Party with
centralized leadership entering the Party’s ideology in the same way as
Prachanda Path which after a three month dialogue became the ideology and
policy of the Party.

It is ironic that Bhatterai accepted this and became its
leading spokesman. Our fraternal communist parties’ world-wide did not agree
with this. If we go through these events we can see that Prachanda persuaded
Bhatterai to accept the Prachanda Path in return for him accepting the
parliamentary road.

Another interesting point is that the demand for a CA, round-table conference
and joint government appeared so suddenly at the Second Congress. If we asked
why it had happened in this way Prachanda answered cleverly that it was to give
legitimacy to the PW.

We now know
that the call for a CA was agreed by the Indian government and Bhatterai six
months prior to the Second Congress.

2. Stage and sub-stage Within the Revolution

When the Party agreed about the CA at the time Bhatterai proposed stage
and sub-stage theory which was opposed initially by comrades but gradually took
root. Prachanda never officially criticized it but used to say in Party meetings
that it was ‘bourgeois and rightist’. Bhatterai himself never used the term
‘bourgeois democracy’ until King Gyanendra’s seizure of power and dissolution
of parliament in 2004. But now it is proved that the stages of revolution
proposed by Bhatterai was to fuse PW with bourgeois democracy.

3. Institutional Development of Republican Democracy.

The Chunwang Plenum in 2005
of the Party declared the tactic of republican democracy by making an alliance
with the reactionary parties. It was intended as an interim move to pave the
way for a People’s Republic. Prachanda clearly stated in a Party document that
the communist party will to convert this stage into a PR; that the status quo
parties will try to establish bourgeois capitalism and that at this same point
the revolution will be focused. The whole Party agreed with this but after the
2006 Andolan (uprising) and the overthrow of Gyanendra Bhatterai then began to
use the term ‘republican democracy’. For our part cadres never discussed in
detail the implications of the institutional development of this project. This
term clearly implied that it was a pro-people’s state but that it was never the
strategy of the Party. It was not conducive for a semi-feudal, neo-colonial
country like Nepal where are the social structures remained the same.

It was always accepted within the Party that republican democracy was a transitional
tactic towards a People’s Republic and no more. Our strategy remained for the
latter but

Bhatterai’s concept of institutional development had the effect of
freezing that transition and worse entrenching bourgeois capitalist democracy.
This is not a eventual aim of a communist party and is capitulationist to
abandon the revolution to change the social and economic structure and the
general capitalist characteristics of the state.

4. Peace and Constitution

Now Prachanda and Bhatterai are focused on peace and constitution as if
all else is illusion.

They want a bourgeois constitution spelt out and are
criticizing those who want a revolutionary settlement for peace and
constitution. The fact is that we do not want a constitution with bourgeois characteristics
but instead one that will secure the rights of peasants, workers, janjatis,
Dalits, women and PLA. None of this is mentioned in the proposals they have put
forth.

Yes we need peace and constitution but one that is clearly defined. What
we have today asks the question as to how we can bring real peace? And what did
we struggle for in PW? These are the questions we need to concentrate on. We
had a type of peace and constitution before PW but in our analysis it was not
pro-people – to the contrary. It was a system that did not reflect their
interests but only those of the entrenched bourgeois-feudal classes. Therefore
the great PW was launched and a pro-people peace and constitution came to the
forefront. But now they are trying to rebuild the system as it was before and
this is unacceptable. It will designed to function for those who were the
ruling class in the past. This creates the necessity of struggle for a
pro-people settlement.

5. Republican Democracy

The political line of Prachanda
and Bhatterai has trapped them within the confines of bourgeois republican
democracy. They reasons they give for accepting it is because of the
difficulties for revolutionaries given the national and international balance
of forces. This is not true; the fact is that this has led them to a rightist
and opportunist position.

These are the same people who declared the previous bourgeois democratic
system as reactionary and were leaders in PW to end it. It is clear that
bourgeois democrats favour capitalism and we would be mistaken if we believed
that this system benefits our people.

The are the same people who use to say that we have to complete our
revolution and establish a People’s Republic but who now say it is an
‘ultra-leftist’ and ‘dogmatic’ aspiration which is against a lasting peace. Now
their activities in collecting the names of the revolutionary leaders from the
districts and villages shows they are not only rightist and capitulationist but
fascist. We know that the eventual outcome of capitalist democracy in an age of
imperialism is fascism and it appears that Prachanda and Bhatterai by advocating
and implementing this system are working towards this outcome.

Summary

The Maoist party which started the PW that organized and administered the
liberated zones and the PLA became the centre of international revolution but Prachanda
and Bhatterai have surrendered this to Delhi, Nepali Congress, UML and the
forces of reaction by announcing the end of the PW, the dismantlement of dual-power
institutions of People’s Courts, communes and the PLA. Under their leadership
the Nepalese revolution is collapsing. Why has this happened? To answer this
question we must go to the point during PW when they introduced the CA and
round-table conferences as two stages of struggle and it was the logical
outcome of their plan of establishing bourgeois republican democracy. In short
we can say that their agenda became consolidated when Prachanda assimilated
Bhatterai’s ideology and politics.

Revolutionary Responsibilities

Their betrayal of the Nepalese revolution has created a crisis but is not
fatal to the revolution, we can rise to the challenge and we should.Therefore
we have duties and should not delay in fulfilling our responsibilities by
concentrating on the four points below:

1) Protecting Our Revolutionary Ideology

Now they are attacking Marxist-Leninist-Maoism by using it to argue that
Nepal’s specific objective conditions require the revolution to acquire
bourgeois-capitalist characteristics and cannot be used as a model for world
revolution. Communists, in short, should accept multi-party democracy in a
bourgeois capitalist state. Because of this all our dual-power structures were
dismantled, dissolved and disrupted. We have to take a stand against this
dilution of our revolutionary praxis. We have to counter-attack this ideology
which blocks the revolution by establishing bourgeois democracy and entrenching
capitalism. There is no doubt that presently social-democracy reflects the
crisis in capitalism.

2) Formation of Revolutionary Centres

Dismantling the leadership of Prachanda and Bhatterai will leave a vacuum
that revolutionaries must fill. They are already rightist revisionists whatever
form of ‘revolutionary’ rhetoric they use and this has become a major problem
facing our revolution.

The Two-Line Struggle within the Party formed the foundation of
revolutionary leadership but formally Prachanda is the leader of the Party so
it made it easier for them to implement a rightist/revisionist programme and
more difficult to implement a revolutionary one. If we want to solve this
problem we have to address the question of a revolutionary leadership.

We know very well that the leadership should match our ideology otherwise
we cannot complete the revolution. If we have the appropriate ideology and plan
without the complementary leadership nothing will advance.

It is agreed inside the
Party that up to now the situation has been favourable for the revolution in
Nepal, especially as there is a burning desire among the many marginalized for
fundamental change.But Prachanda and Bhatterai have shown themselves not
prepared to represent and to organize for such an eventuality.

They are not ready to take
the revolutionary risk. Therefore, to be practical it is not that difficult to
for us to break with this timorous approach and move forward boldly.

3) Alternative People’s State

Only a People’s state can provide the alternative for their rights and
liberation. Parliamentary capitalism cannot fulfill such tasks, but presently Prachanda
and Bhatterai are the spokespersons for this polity. They are saying there is
no other route than bourgeois democracy and represents how rightist and capitulationist
their thinking has become. It creates difficulties for the people and we should
protest against it.

Dual-power structures
established to serve the people during PW have been cleverly, gradually and
wrongly destroyed by Prachanda. To serve this aim Prachanda rhetorically raised
the slogan for urban revolution and many sincere revolutionaries believed him
although the real agenda was to drag the Party towards reformist parliamentarianism.

In fact, in the final
analysis it became counter-productive for Prachanda.

Now there are fresh opportunities to re-unify the movement and People’s
Democracy. Inside the drama of the CA the attitudes of strengthening
parliamentary democracy became prevalent. People’s rights are to be terminated
and genuflection made to the international power-brokers of imperialism which
has inspired a strong people’s resistance against this trend.

4) Revolutionary Struggle

Without struggle the old will not die and the new cannot be born and
while the parliamentary system is here we must direct our energies against it. After
the election for last CA we did not try to reorganise our revolution. The most
extreme slogans of Prachanda were just made to confuse revolutionaries.

There are the problems for farmers and peasants with Prachanda returning
the expropriated lands to the feudal zamindars (landlords). There are
problems for workers but Prachanda and Bhatterai are considering denying them
the right to strike. When we talk about problems for our national sovereignty they
sign yet more unequal treaties. They are not taking responsibility for the
day-to-day problems faced by ordinary people. Yet they criticise
revolutionaries as ‘ultra-left’ for addressing these issues. These examples
prove that they are preparing to ban furthers struggles but the revolutionary
current is strong in the country and the people support it. There is no
alternative but for to us re-organise the revolutionary forces in the coming
days and months.

Conclusion

The Prachanda and Bhatterai axis is already discredited within the
Nepalese revolution. It is the reality as they have proved over the last six
years that they are agents of capitalist parliamentary democracy. This is
reflected in the dismemberment of People’s dual-power structures and their
personal financial corruption. This is further proof that Bhatterai’s agenda of
a revolutionary sub-stage and Prachanda’s adoption of that stratagem, which has
resulted in their abandonment of revolutionary communism for bourgeois
capitalist democracy.

The rightist alignment within the Party should be the target for
revolutionaries and carried out according to Marxist-Leninist-Maoist
principles. It should be transformed and re-integrated into the revolutionary
forces or eliminated. After the identifying the rightist/reformist trend within
the Party it will not remain for long.

Logically there is an alternative to the capitalist parliamentary system
and that is the People’s Republic which will address and solve the problems of
the people. This will be achieved by communists and democratic patriotic giving
leadership in respect of permanent peace and the development and prosperity of
the country.

There is no other way and it is the necessity for the
revolutionary centre to establish a People’s Republic. We have to accept this
truth and implement this strategy. This is the prime responsibility for revolutionaries
and one which will raise the Nepalese revolution to new heights.